• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:54
CEST 05:54
KST 12:54
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed10Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Who will win EWC 2025? The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 622 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9749

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9747 9748 9749 9750 9751 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-21 14:43:29
January 21 2018 14:21 GMT
#194961
whoops i misunderstood.
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Profile Blog Joined March 2013
Netherlands30548 Posts
January 21 2018 14:57 GMT
#194962
Ah that swamp, what was supposed to be done with that again? I guess it was too viscous to drain so they just gave up or something.

Just days after the House passed its version of the federal tax law slashing corporate tax rates, House Speaker Paul Ryan collected nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions from billionaire energy mogul Charles Koch and his wife, according to a recent campaign donor report.

Koch and his brother David spent millions of dollars to get the tax law passed and are spending millions more in a public relations campaign in an attempt to boost support for the law, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in the nation, operates refineries and manufactures a variety of products. The new tax law — which slices corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, slashes estate taxes and includes a special deduction for oil and gas investors — is expected to save the Koch brothers and their businesses billions of dollars in taxes.

Just 13 days after the tax law was passed, Charles Koch and his wife, Elizabeth, donated nearly $500,000 to Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, according to a campaign finance report filed Thursday.

Five other donors, including billionaire businessmen Jeffery Hildebrand and William Parfet, each contributed $100,000 in the last quarter of 2017, according to the records.

“It looks like House Speaker Ryan is quickly being rewarded for passing this legislation that overwhelmingly benefits the Kochs and billionaires like them,” Adam Smith, spokesman for campaign finance reform nonprofit Every Voice, told the International Business Times, which first reported the Koch contributions.

The Koch donations were paid into Team Ryan, which raises money for the speaker, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a PAC run by Ryan. On the same day, Charles and Elizabeth Koch also each donated $237,000 to the NRCC.
source
Neosteel Enthusiast
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
January 21 2018 15:36 GMT
#194963
inserting answers in bold so they're next to each question
On January 21 2018 22:53 iamthedave wrote:
By all means correct me on the following things as I understand them (and attempt to grapple with this latest situation)

* 2013 shutdown: This came about - if I remember right - because a certain wing of the Republican GOP insisted point blank that they would not sign any bill that didn't completely defund the ACA. I vividly recall Bill O'Reilly of all people telling a Tea Party speaker that they couldn't possibly win in that situation because the ACA had been signed into law and therefore had to be funded.
it was also unwinnable because Obama was president, and ACA was his signature legislation, so he'd veto anything destroying it.
* 2018 shutdown: The Dems and GOP came up with a bipartisan bill that would have sorted everything out, but for some reason it failed. I'm not sure why. Did the GOP feel they were giving up too much?
I'm not clear on this; my understanding is that Trump blew up the deal. I don't get why congress didn't just pass it anyway and invite the president to veto it so any blame falls on him. the republican leadership in congress seems reluctant to antagonize trump.

* The GOP then put forward a bill that required the Dems to accept multiple cuts to the ACA in order to keep things open. They refused, as the ACA is a hard line they don't want to budge on.

* The Dems tried to put forth an alternative, but Mitch refused to allow a vote on it. Was there something the GOP objected to in the alternative? I've not heard a take on it.
The GOP may've simply disliked it strategically, as it removes their ability to leverage the situation. The GOP has been trying to leverage stuff in bad faith to force through what they want. In general they've blocked a lot of Dem bills from getting to the floor so they don't have to be on record as voting against them.

* Somewhere in this mess, Trump tweeted that he didn't support the inclusion of CHIP funding, which seems to be the one thing everyone supports? Or is that a Dem thing? Looking at the posts here, everyone seems to think CHIP funding is good.
Dems strongly support CHIP; Republicans officially support CHIP (doing otherwise would get them voted out), but it's clear they don't actually support it much, if at all. If they actually supported CHIP they could've fully funded it ages ago. Instead they kept it unfunded to use as bargaining leverage. The republicans claim they didn't fund it because they were arguing over where to get the money for it. Which was shown to be false when they passed the tax cut which increases the debt by far more, and is on a far less worthy cause.

* The Republicans still can't get everyone voting together because a few voted no. And a few Democrats voted yes, and they failed by a slim margin. If the Republicans all voted in lockstep would they have passed it, plus the Dem yes votes? Why did the nos no?
If the republicans all voted together plus the dem yes, it wouldn't be quite enough to get past the 60 required to end a filibuster (which someone would have done) so it would not have passed. The republican nos were because they're tired of endless continuing resolutions. The actual budget was due Oct 1, and kicking the can down the road a month at a time to try to reach a deal isn't working, they think it's time to pass a proper budget. It's a nuisance for agencies planning, since they still don't know what their budget will be.

* Is DACA the big sticking point here? Or CHIP? Or the border wall? Or something entirely different? I'm genuinely trying to figure this out but the messaging is really garbled and at the moment seems to involve a lot of 'YOU DID IT' from both sides without any clear explanation of WHY whoever did what they did, did it.
Some of it is an outgrowth of Republicans campaigning for years on dismantling the affordable care act. They painted themselves into a corner and are trying to hold onto their jobs. They tried to vote on directly dismantling it, and they couldn't get the votes to do so (and it was done in ways which bypass the filibuster, so if all republicans had voted the same they could've done it). The republicans do not have an actual replacement plan for the ACA, and some of them (ones in moderate/left-leanin areas) know that if they just remove it, they will lose their next election as people who lose their health insurance will be very angry. The republicans spent years saying the ACA was horrible and damaging, which they knew to be false. So when they attack ACA, they lose all the Dem votes and (sometimes at least) a few moderate republicans, if they don't attack ACA, then they broke their campaign promise and will get primary'd out. The larger issues are simply that the republicans do not agree amongst themselves on a budget, and they're not that willing to make a bipartisan deal because they fear getting primary'd out (many districts are so Red that the only threat of them losing their seat comes from the primary rather than the general election). Years of republicans acting in bad faith and destroying the norms of governance has also made the dems ever warier, and lead to a general decrease in willingness to make deals, but that's probably a much milder effect as politicians would still make a deal when it's in their self-interest to do so.

* Part of the issue seems to be that the issues at foot have been getting Continuing Resolutioned for months, and some senators have had enough and want them sorted instead of having to talk about them again in another few months. Is this part of the problem?
Yes it is.

Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
January 21 2018 15:44 GMT
#194964
Thanks for that, Zlef. That does help a bit. This seems a way bigger mess than the last one.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
January 21 2018 16:00 GMT
#194965
On January 21 2018 11:45 ticklishmusic wrote:


Chelsea Manning is totally a legit candidate, right?


Chelsea Manning is a traitor and acted as an agent of the Russian government. I, for one, am going to be consistent in calling out both liberals and conservatives who worked to further Russian interests. "I was going through a lot" is an excuse that might get me to forgive you personally, but this is not the time to be showing lenience toward spies and traitors. We have enough "stupid, unpatriotic, treasonous" stuff coming out of the Trump White House already.
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13906 Posts
January 21 2018 17:00 GMT
#194966
I don't think anyone is forgiving what Chelsea did. I think people think she had her day in court and served the sentence.

People don't think shes a real candidate because she's trump level elect-ability but is transgender as well.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
January 21 2018 17:04 GMT
#194967
On January 21 2018 17:10 mozoku wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2018 12:38 ChristianS wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.

Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.

Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.

Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false.

I'm going to try by best to explain why I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as you're describing it in the bolded bit above. I'd welcome you to try to explain where you think I'm wrong. And for the record, that's not me beating my chest in a challenge – I easily might be wrong. I'm not an expert on politics, and in this case, I'm not totally sure what I think about this shutdown. In 2013 it looked clearly like the Republicans' fault to me; in this case it feels a lot less clear-cut.

If we consider the long-term budget renewal as a negotiation, I'll try to enumerate what each side is hoping to get out of the final deal:

Mutual Goals
continue funding the government
DACA (?)
CHIP (?)

Democrats
DACA (?)
CHIP funding (?)
other stuff?

Republicans
more military funding
border wall / increased border security funding
other stuff?


(Side note: I marked DACA and CHIP with (?) because at various points they have seemed like either mutual goals or just Democrats' goals; at the moment I would say that both sides want CHIP but Democrats want it more, and Democrats want DACA while Republicans, on average, don't. But that's just my estimation, thus the question mark)

There's a variety of, again, long-term deals we could imagine coming out of that set of terms for a negotiation. Something Trump has pretty clearly suggested on Twitter was that the Democrats fund his wall in exchange for legislative protections for DACA recipients. But that's just one example (and one that I don't think Democrats would accept).

But what the Republicans offered last night was not a long-term deal. It was a short-term CR. The premise of the short-term CR is "let's pass this limited funding of the government to avert a shutdown while we negotiate a long-term budget deal." But of course, to do that they have to come to a deal on what short-term CR to do.

So let's consider the short-term CR as a separate negotiation, and once again ask what each side is hoping to get out of it.

Mutual Goals
temporarily fund the government for some time interval while negotiations for a long-term deal continue
CHIP (?)

Democrats
time interval: ~1 week
CHIP(?)

Republicans
time interval: 1 month
elimination of some minor Obamacare taxes


(CHIP appears in this list too because its funding runs out in the short-term)

I tried to make all of the above more or less non-partisan analysis; if anyone disagrees with any of the above characterizations, please say so, because I honestly thought that was all pretty much agreed upon.

Now here's what I think we can say factually. Republicans and Democrats together failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a long-term deal. They also failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a [b]short-term[b] deal. Without either a long-term or short-term budget deal, the government shut down.

I don't think we can say with the same factual certainty whose fault either of those failures was. I think the mistake you're making is looking at the Democrats long-term rhetoric (we need DACA as part of a deal) and juxtaposing with the Republicans short-term proposal (1 month CR with CHIP funding), and seeing it as "Republicans just want a clean CR, but Democrats won't do it without DACA." Then a vote was held on the Republicans' proposal, and Democrats opposed it, so that appeared to confirm your interpretation.

The examples that would disprove your interpretation are hypothetical, but I think they do disprove it. If, hypothetically, Mitch McConnell had in a moment of spinelessness or insanity or whatever other reason, brought a vote to amend the CR to only fund the government for 1 week, I don't know whether it would have passed, but I absolutely believe Dems would have voted for it. If the amendment passed, and in a moment of continued insanity McConnell then brought a vote for cloture on the now-shortened CR, I don't know if it would have passed, but I absolutely think the Dems would have voted for it. That behavior would be inconsistent with the attitude of "we won't do a CR unless it includes DACA."

All the reporting on the negotiations that went on last night (to my mind, at least) confirms to me this interpretation. All the haggling seemed to be over the length of the CR. Republicans were announcing that they were offering a 3-week "off-ramp" if Democrats wanted to avert a shutdown. Democrats refused. Democrats offered a deal that would expire on January 29th; Republicans refused. At one point Bob Corker said the negotiations had haggled the range down to "somewhere between the 2nd and the 8th of February."

Just like the long-term deal, we could argue about whose short-term wish list is more meritorious, or who was being more intransigent, to try to pin blame on someone for the failure to reach a deal. But I simply don't think you can factually state "the Democrats wouldn't take the Republicans' 1-month CR, so it's their fault." The Republicans were just as unwilling to accept the one-week CR. If either side had capitulated to the other's timeline, they could have averted the shutdown, so in that sense, it was entirely within both sides' power to stop it.

Forgive me for not putting in the work to make this post shorter, but really, I'd like to hear where you think I'm either mistaken or engaging in Trumpian dishonesty/denial of logic.

Edit:
On January 21 2018 12:01 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2018 10:13 ChristianS wrote:
On January 21 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:
On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:
On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:
On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:
On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.

Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time.

Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable.


Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches."

In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't.

So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring.

This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh.

Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes.

If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh.

And ... you prompt another wave of dishonest responses. Its Trumpian, like one party elected him and the other party elected to use his tactics.

Honest question, would you include mine among the "dishonest responses" you're referring to? I think I've been trying pretty hard to make good faith comments about this, but if people are going to assume I'm dishonest anyway I won't bother to put in the effort

That looked like an honest question and perspective (that I disagree with, but not what I was referring to). The other arguments presented for why it was really Republican's fault, and how those arguments twisted and turned (Introvert/Mozoku pair of posts) was what stood out.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.

This is a much more reasonable analysis than what I've seen from other posters, and I can mostly agree with it. That said, I don't see it as in conflict with what I've posted. I don't see how the the breakdown of long-term negotiations, from a funding perspective, can be blamed on Republicans. Doing so requires the assumption that DACA is somehow necessarily linked to funding. The short-term analysis is doesn't contradict what I've read, but it doesn't absolve the Democrats either. While the Democrats would have preferred a one week CR, I've seen no reason to consider a one-month CR a "poison pill." Nor do I see any issue with the majority party holding a vote on their preferred timeline instead of their opposition's. It isn't really a defensible response to shut down the government because you didn't get the timeline you wanted on the timeline.

The Dem strategy for the shutdown is this: Republicans usually are worse in generic shutdown politics because they're the small government party; they also control all three relevant chambers; their president is unpopular and widely seen as incompetent; and DACA is popular. Hence, they feel they can force a shutdown and essentially blame the Republicans to gain leverage on DACA. The optics from their perspective are fantastic.

The issue is that, in an ironic reversal of roles, the facts and truth of the matter actually lie with the Republicans on this one. This is why both parties are somewhat comfortable going into the shutdown: the Dems think they can persuade the public it's the GOP's fault with of all the circumstantial evidence, and the GOP feels it can successfully explain to the public that the Dems are the ones that actually chose the shutdown.

I guess I just don't understand why you would dismiss the idea that the Dems might have a good reason to want the timeline to be shorter. In this case my understanding is that we've been on these short-term CRs since September, and each time Republicans say "yeah we'll work on a budget with you Dems this month" and then fuck off to another room and work on healthcare or taxes or something with zero effort at bipartisan support.

In that context I can totally understand saying "no, we have to actually work on a budget this time." And the way to ensure they'll actually work on a budget is to make the timeline short enough that they don't have a choice. If they spend a week working on a deal and still need more time, pass another 1 week CR.

That interpretation is giving them the benefit of the doubt in a way that I could understand not wanting to do. Maybe they're as cynical as you say; they know shutdowns are part of the GOP brand and they can expect the public to blame Republicans. But I do think there are reasonable arguments for the position they've taken, not only on the long-term budget but also on the CR, that don't necessarily reduce to "we think it's worth it to shut down the government to get what we want."

Maybe the biggest reason I'm tempted to lay the blame on the GOP is their complete failure at bipartisanship for the past year. Under Obama we could have the argument about whether Dems weren't doing a good enough job of reaching out to Republicans or whether Republicans were being intransigent (I'm not just talking about the shutdown here). That debate largely hasn't happened under Trump because Dems haven't even really been given the chance to be intransigent. Every legislative effort has been aimed at 52 Republican senators coming up with at least 50 votes between them, and success or failure came from whether they got those votes. Democrats weren't in the room for negotiations, they didn't even let them see the bills until as late as possible, and no concessions were made to try to get their support.

That meeting with the Dems on a budget deal was supposed to be their effort to turn that around, but they botched it. They agreed to a bunch of stuff, then turned around and said "wait a minute, no no no no no" and fireballed the deal they negotiated. The reason, of course, is because they put people in the room that wanted a deal the larger GOP didn't want, but that isn't an excuse, just an explanation. They should have either put different people in the room or told those people more clearly what the GOP was willing to back.

It's really damaging to effective good-faith negotiations if you can't trust the other side to actually deliver something when they promise it. If the trust is there, they can say "I could give you this" and you can say "I would give you this in return." Otherwise when they say "I could give you this, what would you give me in return" you have to say "well before I show you my hand, how do I know you can really offer that, or that you won't change your mind last minute? What protections and contingencies go into effect if you change your mind or fail to deliver?" It makes the discussion much more strained and time-consuming.

So if we view budget shutdowns not as "one party wanting to shut the government down" but as "negotiations breaking down as the parties try to reach a deal to keep the government open," and then ask why negotiations broke down, I think a lot of that can be traced to mistakes the Republicans have been making for at least the past year. Of course, if you think the Democrats actually did want a shutdown, frayed negotiations had nothing to do with it, but on that, I think I'm just taking them at their word in a way you aren't willing to do (that they really do think it's important for the shutdown to be on a shorter timeline, and that's not just an excuse to shut the government down for political points).
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42578 Posts
January 21 2018 18:00 GMT
#194968
Chelsea Manning did whistleblow on some legitimately awful things the US military was doing in Iraq. I vividly remember how I felt the first time I watched the Collateral Murder video for example.

Free society depends upon transparent institutions. And when those institutions fail to be transparent it depends upon whistleblowers who sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13906 Posts
January 21 2018 18:06 GMT
#194969
On January 22 2018 03:00 KwarK wrote:
Chelsea Manning did whistleblow on some legitimately awful things the US military was doing in Iraq. I vividly remember how I felt the first time I watched the Collateral Murder video for example.

Free society depends upon transparent institutions. And when those institutions fail to be transparent it depends upon whistleblowers who sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.

Societies also depend on being secure and not living in fear. They also depend more or less on doing terrible things to other societies in order to benifit their society. Chelsea manning made us less safe despite making it more transparent.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42578 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-21 18:07:35
January 21 2018 18:07 GMT
#194970
That view is both false and craven.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13906 Posts
January 21 2018 18:16 GMT
#194971
On January 22 2018 03:07 KwarK wrote:
That view is both false and craven.

Your view is naive and fatalist.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Ciaus_Dronu
Profile Joined June 2017
South Africa1848 Posts
January 21 2018 18:17 GMT
#194972
On January 22 2018 03:06 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 22 2018 03:00 KwarK wrote:
Chelsea Manning did whistleblow on some legitimately awful things the US military was doing in Iraq. I vividly remember how I felt the first time I watched the Collateral Murder video for example.

Free society depends upon transparent institutions. And when those institutions fail to be transparent it depends upon whistleblowers who sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.

Societies also depend on being secure and not living in fear. They also depend more or less on doing terrible things to other societies in order to benifit their society. Chelsea manning made us less safe despite making it more transparent.


That's some A-Grade imperialist crap right there.
But hey you need terrorists to scare people into allowing authoritarian levels of "safety" measures to be implemented. Hard to make those without ruining enough foreign nations.
Even ignoring the principle of what you are saying, needless collateral and killing cameramen does ****-all to make you safer, or advance any society.


Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13906 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-21 18:22:50
January 21 2018 18:21 GMT
#194973
Why don't we just video tape everything we do in the world and broadcast it live. I'm sure everyone will totaly understand what we're doing and won't be upset.

Or on the other hand just never leave the US. I'm sure the world will do great judging from the last times we did that. "transparency" is a crutch people do to forgive themselves for the sins that their parents committed to give them the lives they have today.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21652 Posts
January 21 2018 18:25 GMT
#194974
On January 22 2018 03:06 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 22 2018 03:00 KwarK wrote:
Chelsea Manning did whistleblow on some legitimately awful things the US military was doing in Iraq. I vividly remember how I felt the first time I watched the Collateral Murder video for example.

Free society depends upon transparent institutions. And when those institutions fail to be transparent it depends upon whistleblowers who sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.

Societies also depend on being secure and not living in fear. They also depend more or less on doing terrible things to other societies in order to benifit their society. Chelsea manning made us less safe despite making it more transparent.

"Do terrible things to other societies in order to benefit our own"

The justification for every atrocity in human history.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24671 Posts
January 21 2018 18:25 GMT
#194975
Transparency is a balance. Governments (US and others) sometimes keep information from the public for bad reasons, and sometimes keep information from the public for good reasons. In my opinion, either discuss exactly what information Chelsea Manning released and analyze it on its merits or move on.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
January 21 2018 18:32 GMT
#194976
On January 22 2018 03:06 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 22 2018 03:00 KwarK wrote:
Chelsea Manning did whistleblow on some legitimately awful things the US military was doing in Iraq. I vividly remember how I felt the first time I watched the Collateral Murder video for example.

Free society depends upon transparent institutions. And when those institutions fail to be transparent it depends upon whistleblowers who sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.

Societies also depend on being secure and not living in fear. They also depend more or less on doing terrible things to other societies in order to benifit their society. Chelsea manning made us less safe despite making it more transparent.

I disagree on the second sentence, and question the foundation for that claim (and also the breadth of which you're applying that, as you could be covering quite a lot of different things with that)
no comment on the manning issue.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
January 21 2018 19:03 GMT
#194977
On January 22 2018 03:16 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 22 2018 03:07 KwarK wrote:
That view is both false and craven.

Your view is naive and fatalist.


How's it fatalist?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
January 21 2018 19:10 GMT
#194978
On January 22 2018 04:03 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 22 2018 03:16 Sermokala wrote:
On January 22 2018 03:07 KwarK wrote:
That view is both false and craven.

Your view is naive and fatalist.


How's it fatalist?


Because the Iraq War made our country more safe, obviously.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15665 Posts
January 21 2018 19:11 GMT
#194979
How long do you guys think the government will be shut down?
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
January 21 2018 19:23 GMT
#194980
On January 22 2018 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
How long do you guys think the government will be shut down?

impossible to say with any accuracy; as a vague guess projecting from the history of past shutdowns, 3 weeks.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Prev 1 9747 9748 9749 9750 9751 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Monday
00:00
#40
davetesta40
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 248
RuFF_SC2 161
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 17472
Sharp 74
Icarus 10
LuMiX 3
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm124
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K156
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox631
Mew2King88
Other Games
summit1g14529
ViBE216
Trikslyr60
ROOTCatZ35
CosmosSc2 23
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3189
BasetradeTV21
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH303
• Light_VIP 77
• practicex 26
• OhrlRock 2
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• masondota2750
• Lourlo655
• Stunt309
Other Games
• Scarra1420
Upcoming Events
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
12h 6m
Replay Cast
20h 6m
The PondCast
1d 6h
OSC
1d 9h
WardiTV European League
1d 12h
Replay Cast
1d 20h
Epic.LAN
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Epic.LAN
3 days
CSO Contender
3 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Online Event
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
6 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.